Homophobes are afraid of the same?

[Perd Hapley]

Before this thread explodes into a giant fireball of confused controversy, would someone please define "homophobe" and discuss whether it is an appropriate term for anyone who states opposition to homosexuality?  

I ask because phobias are unreasonable fears, yet "homophobia" is almost always used to describe opposition to homosexuality rather than the fear of it.  This being the case, current usage of the term seems to imply that anyone opposing homosexuality does so out of fear.  That would seem an unwarranted assumption and one intended to deny the "homophobes" any sort of principled position.  Can this be fair?

Of course, the inept construction of the word can also be rather distressing.  "Homosexualaphobe" would seem to be a more appropriate construction.  Those with Latin are welcome to advise me.

[atek3]

well since most homophobes don't mind watching lesbians go at it it should be "gayguysdoingitphobia"



atek3

[Preacherman]

You raise a good point.  Opposition to homosexual conduct is not in any sense "homophobia", in that opponents aren't afraid of homosexuals - they simply don't accept as valid their chosen sexual expression.  A homophobe would be someone who's terrified of/by homosexuals:  and quite frankly, I don't know anyone who would fit that description.

[atek3]

"they simply don't accept as valid"

how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"?  This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.

atek3

[brimic]

well since most homophobes don't mind watching lesbians go at it it should be "gayguysdoingitphobia"

From the looks of most of the real life lesbians I've met or known, I don't want to see them 'doing it' either.  

[RaggedClaws]

I believe the term is overused.  Originally, I think it applied more to those who turned to violence against  homosexuals.  The reasoning goes, it's one thing to be against the idea of homosexuality, but it's quite another thing to get all frothing-at-the-mouth shaking-your-fists red-faced angry at homosexuals.  Those who express an extreme, violent anger against homosexuals can't honestly just be against homosexuality on principle, otherwise why the intense emotion?

[InfidelSerf]

I agree with you.  The term homophobe not only smacks of irony.. since the word homo (short for homosexual) has an implied negative and often called bigoted connotation.
It's just part of the language warfare used to combat their opposition.
A common tactic of the left is to twist our language to simply label any opposition they face as either bigoted or racist.

[Sean Smith]

I think the term "homophobia" came about to describe an extreme negative emotional reaction to homosexuals, for instance freaking out at the idea of being in the same room with one.  There are plenty of people like that, e.g. literal gay-bashers and so forth.  Gay rights groups use the term widely, because the term makes anti-gay people sound insane.

As far as I know it was never used as a real psychiatric term with a clinical definition.  It isn't in the DSM-IV, for instance.

On the other hand, your more extreme "gay conspiracy" nuts might deserve to be called "homophobics."

[atek3]

From the looks of most of the real life lesbians I've met or known, I don't want to see them 'doing it' either.

touche!

atek3

[RaggedClaws]

From Webster's dictionary:

ho·mo·pho·bia (n)
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

I think the "irrational" part is key.

[InfidelSerf]

according to Webster's second definition of discrimination " The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment"
So by simply pointing out that someone is homosexual is discrimination?

I imagine its stretchs in the definitions like this that lead to the distortion of our language.

[Werewolf]

Opposition to homosexual conduct is not in any sense "homophobia", in that opponents aren't afraid of homosexuals - they simply don't accept as valid their chosen sexual expression.

Exactly. The term is mostly used by homosexuals and the PC to denigrate the opinions of those opposed to homosexuality. Homophobe is an emotionally charged word. Emotionally charged words are often used in cases where one wishes to indirectly attack the messenger instead of the message.

[Iapetus]

according to Webster's second definition of discrimination " The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment"
So by simply pointing out that someone is homosexual is discrimination?

I imagine its stretchs in the definitions like this that lead to the distortion of our language.

That's "discriminate between" (know/detect the difference), rather than "discriminate against" (make unjustified judgements /actions towards someone on the grounds of differences).  

As for the meaning of "phobia", I've seen it variuosly defined as either "an irrational fear" or "an irrational fear or hatred".

And I've seen people here and on THR use "hopolophobe" to describe people who are opposed to guns/gun ownership, even when it wasn't obvious that they were "afraid" of them.

[Preacherman]

how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"?  This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.

Atek, I was speaking in terms of moral validity, or accepting the moral appropriateness of an action.  Again, this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...

[Guest]

...chosen sexual expression....

Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?

[Guest]

(atek3) how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"?  This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.

...this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...

...because there's no such thing. Morality-talk is just a construct that describes behavior the speaker prefers.

 (sorry to seem to be picking on you, but we can't discuss topics like this if people are going to assert, "That's just wrong!"

 I agree that "homophobe" is an ad hominem slur like "racist" or "anti-semite" that is not useful in logical discussions.
 OTOH, I have never understood those that are "opposed to (or 'for') homosexuality". No one has any control whatsoever over the number or percentage of homosexuals in the world.

[griz]

Morality-talk is just a construct that describes behavior the speaker prefers.

It's not that clear cut. I prefer that people say please and thank you. But I don't believe it's immoral to skip those formalities. On the other hand, somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition. Obviously it gets fuzzy in between the two extremes.

[Guest]

Morality-talk is just a construct that describes behavior the speaker prefers.

It's not that clear cut. I prefer that people say please and thank you. But I don't believe it's immoral to skip those formalities. On the other hand, somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition. Obviously it gets fuzzy in between the two extremes.

The killer prefered to kill the spouse and receive the money. He thought he was doing the right thing - the "moral" thing. It was right for him.

The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal. Fuzzy and relative mean the same thing, IOW.

 And "by any rational person's definition" is an ad hominem fallacy.

[Guest]

*puts on his queer hat* The term Homophobe, within the GLBT community is used quite loosely. For instance, lets take an example.

A few guys work at a store. Most are quite open minded and tolerant of other lifestyles, except Steve. Steve is a "proper"(Ie a bad) christian, who is quite intollerant and closed minded. He could be called a Homophobe, or merely a "Phobe".

If asked, I nor will most other gay guys I know dodge "the question". I havent sofar nor will I, I feel its wrong to lie to people. However its advantageous to my bloodpressure if I can identify the individuals I work or attend class with and are intollerant, I can then distance myself from them. Open confrontation, arguements yada yada dont help anyone. I havent, but guys I've known who have "come out" in a rather public way have indeed been harrassed. Dispite the fact that its a very small percentage of individuals who would say a word against somone elses lifestyle, those that do are often vocal and quite strong willed. The result is mocking, which soon spreads to his friends and so on and the possibility of assualt and vandalism.

The modern GLBT method of being "happy" is not making their sexuality an issue, this does two things. One it helps individuals go unnoticed and live happily without bother. Two, if Steve makes friends with me and then finds out I'm queer. He's less likely to make a snap judgement that I'm somehow "Out to get him". It gives me an open dialogue to try and reason with him in a mature manner. If it works, so be it. If it doesnt, it doesnt.

[Preacherman]

The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal.

Well, that's where we differ, because I believe that morality is objective and absolute in its broadest sense.  Within that broad sense, yes, each person decides for him- or herself whether a particular action is moral or not:  but I can never agree that morality is situational, relative and non-binding in a wider, societal sense.

Please note, too, that I'm not only speaking about morality based upon religious revelation:  obviously, since there are many religions, there can hardly be total agreement on faith-based morality.  I believe that there is a "natural law" morality, that is freely available for anyone to discover, and which is universal.  For example:  the Christian commandment "Thou shalt not steal" has a natural law counterpart - one learns that theft is bad when one is the victim of theft!  Thus, if theft is bad when committed against you, it's also clear that it's bad when you commit it against someone else.  This is a logical progression of thought that is clearly objective and universal.

On a more complex subject such as homosexuality, I believe there is also a natural-law objectivity available.  As I've frequently pointed out to prison inmates (most of whom share no particular religious faith, and therefore don't respond well to the "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not" type of approach), one can look at human sexuality in terms of the natural functions and processes of the human body.  I have commented on numerous occasions to the effect that "the rectum and the anus form the outlet pipe to the body's sewage system, and are NOT the Tunnel of Love!"  Whilst this gets a laugh, it also makes the very valid point that these portions of anatomy have a "designed function" that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity.  The female vagina, on the other hand, is specifically developed for sexual activity, and the consequence of that activity, the birth of children.  Natural function points to a natural law - sodomy is not "natural" or "normal", and therefore can be said to be objectively outside the "boundaries" of what is "normal" in sexual intercourse.

Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so:  but I shall not be adopting their perspective, I'm afraid.

[The Rabbi]

Its called homophobia because racism was taken already.  You can put anyone on the defensive by calling him racist and the homosexual community, seeking the legitimacy and moral high ground the civil rights movement garnered for itself, appropriated an analagous term.

Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?

Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.
I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.

[Guest]

Its called homophobia because racism was taken already.  You can put anyone on the defensive by calling him racist and the homosexual community, seeking the legitimacy and moral high ground the civil rights movement garnered for itself, appropriated an analagous term.

Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?

Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.
I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.

I never chose to be queer..

[griz]

I just can't go for that Mercedes. It's the same as saying there is no right or wrong. Like Preacherman, I certainly agree with your point that individuals make decisons based on their own "morality". But for a large part of recorded history different and seperate cultures all over the world have largely agreed that premeditated murder for profit is wrong. As for the rational person fallacy, I would say that the 99+ percent of the population that thinks that murder for profit is immoral are rational. If the murderers truely think their decisions were moral (as opposed to an excue) then they are insane.

Not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not a doctor either!

As to the morality of homosexuality, that's a tough one. My current feeling is that you are born predisposed one way or the other, and it harms no one, so I can't see the immorality of it. YMMV.

[griz]

The killer prefered to kill the spouse and receive the money. He thought he was doing the right thing - the "moral" thing. It was right for him.

I just re-read that and wanted to add this: The killer chose to kill. That does not mean he thought he was doing right. Indeed the ability to identify the action as right or wrong is one of the criteria for the insanity defense.

[Perd Hapley]

As the thread's originator, I never expected it to get this far without a lot of screaming.  I'm proud of us, so far, but I think we are trending toward useless argument and lamentable invective.

I think there is often a certain amount of fear when a straight man encounters a homosexual man- fear that others will think that he is also a homosexual if he associates with him.  I think this is why some react with hatred; because the homosexual has become an enemy in that he threatens the straight's reputation.  Some think a violent reaction will prove their manhood.  However, the term "homophobe" is usually used only as a smear against anyone who speaks out against homosexuality.  "Hoplophobe" is used the same way, which is unfortunate.



MercedesRules,

we can't discuss topics like this if people are going to assert, "That's just wrong!"

Why not?  Until you drew it out of him, Preacherman wasn't preaching, just responding to a question from myself and from Atek3.  I'm afraid we can't discuss topics like this if people like you drag us into other topics, as you are trying to do.  It doesn't help that you accuse griz of ad hominem, when he said nothing against you or anyone else.